Here's update, new title, territory labels. Man it was a pain typing all those.(I also split east russia in 2 and merged some territs in west russia, also added 3 african territories that give no bonus)

I like the idea, and the current layout, though the graphics seem pretty reminiscent to Nordic Countries. One thing that I've liked about your Maps, Natty, is that they largely had unique graphic styles associated with each (Yugo, Three Kingdoms, Orient Express, etc).

I think you are right to approach the idea from a sleek and clean style point of view, though differentiating it more from your recent work would be welcomed in my mind.

Well, I'd rather look at it from a functional perspective. I think the style works for the map, I have a pretty good vision of what I want to do here graphically, and just because it may have some superficial resemblance to some of my earlier work (which shouldn't really be a surprise, you know) it shouldn't be a reason to change something that works. Don't fix what isn't broken, you know.

natty_dread wrote:Well, I'd rather look at it from a functional perspective. I think the style works for the map, I have a pretty good vision of what I want to do here graphically, and just because it may have some superficial resemblance to some of my earlier work (which shouldn't really be a surprise, you know) it shouldn't be a reason to change something that works. Don't fix what isn't broken, you know.

Haha, I'm definitely not saying scrap. I think you are right on the clean style, I just think you've got a lot of skill that you can use to keep this map clean, while differentiating it from your earlier work.

natty_dread wrote:Well, I'd rather look at it from a functional perspective. I think the style works for the map, I have a pretty good vision of what I want to do here graphically, and just because it may have some superficial resemblance to some of my earlier work (which shouldn't really be a surprise, you know) it shouldn't be a reason to change something that works. Don't fix what isn't broken, you know.

Haha, I'm definitely not saying scrap. I think you are right on the clean style, I just think you've got a lot of skill that you can use to keep this map clean, while differentiating it from your earlier work.

Don't worry, it'll be unique enough when it's done.

On that note, fixed some small details, tweaked some small things... I can honestly spend like an hour tweaking some opacity sliders back & forth trying to decide what's the optimal combination...

If possible can you add also Java? Why you left it out? Technically is part of Asia. Just add some pixels in the lower part, draw the whole borneo (it will look better) and add the Java island.

African territories don't convice me, what's the reason to have them?In any case very nice start natty, I like this map.

I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.All PMs are autobinned. If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.Thanks to those who helped me through the years.

thenobodies80 wrote:If possible can you add also Java? Why you left it out?

1. Space constraints. The image height is 1000 already pixels, which is the maximum.2. Oceania isn't strictly speaking a part of Eurasia, so I don't see including the whole of it necessary. I'd rather keep it as a small peripheral bonus.

I didn't mean the whole australia. I posted the Wallace line (in red on the image)because it is the imaginary border between asia and oceania, java is on the asian side

About space you have other 200 px if you want : SUPERSIZE LARGE MAP: WIDTH up to 1400 px ; HEIGHT 1200 px

I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.All PMs are autobinned. If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.Thanks to those who helped me through the years.

thenobodies80 wrote:I didn't mean the whole australia. I posted the Wallace line (in red on the image)because it is the imaginary border between asia and oceania, java is on the asian side

Yes but it still falls outside the current cropping.

thenobodies80 wrote:About space you have other 200 px if you want : SUPERSIZE LARGE MAP: WIDTH up to 1400 px ; HEIGHT 1200 px

But the small map height restriction is 800 px.

The supersize limits are weirdly inconsistent that way. When the small limit is 800, it doesn't matter that the large limit is 1200... if I aim for a +25% size differential then the maximum height for the large becomes 1.25 * 800 = 1000.

Anyway, I got the legend finished, and changed the colours so that they should be pretty ok for CB people.

There seems to be some inconsistency in your naming. Like Fennoscandia. I get that you live there and want to represent with the proper term for that area, BUT if you are going to do that, be consistent. Turn Western Europe into Iberian Peninsula, etc.

I'm sure you'll disagree, but it just strikes me as odd to have a super specific term like Fennoscandia (when most would lump it into the simplified Scandinavia), and yet you have another bonus region called "Other Stans." Go with one or the other - common names or technical terms.

Why did you decide to split Eastern Europe into its own tiny super bonus? Why not add in the Balkan/Romania/Greece terits to beef that up and move Italy & islands into Central Europe (which is more accurate anyway). Yes, its bordered by the Med, but so are significant chunks of France & Spain & Turkey, etc etc. (Romania - on the other hand - has no border with the Med). I think that makes more sense than having a super bonus of 19 and another of 5.

You asked for more impassable suggestions, so I'll again suggest tundra.

I have to agree with lostatlimbo. There are some curious names you've used. I, myself, prefer more technical names. For example, "Fennoscandia" is technically not correct, since that bonus area includes Denmark, Svalbard and Faroe, and doesn't include the Kola peninsula (Murmansk). This would be best as "Nordic Countries". "Other Stans" could be called Russian Turkestan, as that area was called during pre-independence (a la the USSR). And the territory of "Angora" might best be called "Anatolia" or "Turkey" or "Ankara", perhaps the first being the better option. I'm not familiar with the term "Angola" used to describe that region (though maybe perhaps animals of that region, or something? I thought I remember there being some "Angora Cat" or "Angora Sheep" or some such nonsense).

Elsewise, the border between Austria and Germany looks way off, and I'm not too keen on the Baltics having their own one-territory bonus area. I they'd best be combined with "East Europe".

Nopes, Italy is definitely considered a part of mediterranean countries. You might have a case on Romania, though.

lostatlimbo wrote:You asked for more impassable suggestions, so I'll again suggest tundra.

I meant specific locations where impassables should be. If you have any suggestions I'll hear them.

lostatlimbo wrote:PS - the textures and depth of the oceans and seas are AWESOME.

Heh... thanks. I love making textures. It's kind of my specialty...

Victor Sullivan wrote:I'm not familiar with the term "Angola" used to describe that region

Angora is the old name for Ankara (while Angola is a whole another country), also refers to the general area where Angora sheeps live. It just seemed weird to name it Turkey when it's not all of Turkey... But I guess I could just call it Anatolia.

Victor Sullivan wrote:the border between Austria and Germany looks way off

Maybe that's because Austria kind of also includes the Czech. Anyway. Borders can be fudged whenever it benefits gameplay clarity. You should know this, Victor.

Victor Sullivan wrote:I'm not too keen on the Baltics having their own one-territory bonus area. I they'd best be combined with "East Europe".

Nah, 1 territory bonuses are fine. Again, I like to have a scale of bonuses. From 1 territory to 12. Anyway, Baltics isn't really an Eastern European country. It's it's own region and deserves to be recognized on this map, I feel.

isaiah40 wrote:It seems funny to see East India instead of Assam, and combining Jordan and Israel.

First of all... I don't subscribe to the MrBenn school of mapmaking. I don't think it suits any purpose to make a map where 1 country = 1 territory. I feel it's counterintuitive... in what world does it make any kind of sense that 1 army can hold the entirety of Russia, while that same army is also required to hold a place like Kaliningrad or Vatican? This is just my opinion... Europa is an ok map but not the kind I would make.

So I like to combine small countries, and split large ones, to limit the disproportionacy between territory sizes. Especially when countries are so small that having them independently would hurt gameplay clarity.

East India can be renamed to Assam though, I would have in the first place but somehow the name had escaped my brain and I was too lazy to search for it

isaiah40 wrote:Anyways this is obvious so here is what you have asked for.